Preheating engines: Airplane engines versus auto engines

On Dec 30, 5:56*pm, M wrote:
On Dec 24, 2:42 am, Stealth Pilot

I must admit that the dead hand of certification needs to be phased
out if there is any prospect of innovation again.
the current cosworth *formula1 engines deliver 950hp at 20,000rpm from
an engine package smaller in capacity than an O-200.

I doubt such a formula 1 engine would have better power to weight
ratio if you add the weight of the reduction gear to get the prop tip
speed below supersonic. *I also doubt it can match the BSFC of a
O-200.

People often claim the auto engines are so much better. *I'd like to
see an automobile gasoline engine that has 1. better BSFC than an
IO-550 at its 75% rated power and 2. better power to weight ratio
including the weight of the reduction gear to drive a propeller.

http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/G...ticle2.htmlhas a lot
of good info.

Deal,,,, Come on out to Jackson Hole Wy and I will demonstrate an auto
engine that will prove both of your questions wrong.

Ben Haas
www.haaspowerair.com

On Dec 30, 5:27 pm, " wrote:


Deal,,,, Come on out to Jackson Hole Wy and I will demonstrate an auto
engine that will prove both of your questions wrong.


No need for that. You should simply post your performance data right
here.

On Dec 30, 7:43*pm, M wrote:
On Dec 30, 5:27 pm, " wrote:



Deal,,,, Come on out to Jackson Hole Wy and I will demonstrate an auto
engine that will prove both of your questions wrong.

No need for that. *You should simply post your performance data right
here.

No need for that, I sell only to the "experimental" plane market. Your
are stuck with the "certified" 60 year old technology. I will say I
don't think the IO-550 weighs 437 lbs complete with prop. Maybe 600+
lbs... :(. Liquid cooled engines can and will get better BSCF numbers
then aircooled ones, it is a fact of life............

Happy New Year all.

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

On Dec 31, 5:51 am, " wrote:
On Dec 30, 7:43 pm, M wrote:

On Dec 30, 5:27 pm, " wrote:

Deal,,,, Come on out to Jackson Hole Wy and I will demonstrate an auto
engine that will prove both of your questions wrong.

No need for that. You should simply post your performance data right
here.

No need for that, I sell only to the "experimental" plane market. Your
are stuck with the "certified" 60 year old technology. I will say I
don't think the IO-550 weighs 437 lbs complete with prop. Maybe 600+
lbs... :(. Liquid cooled engines can and will get better BSCF numbers
then aircooled ones, it is a fact of life............

Yup, because fuel isn't wasted trying to keep the engine cool
at high power settings like at takeoff and climb. But it improves too
with the variable ignition timing found on auto engines, and
frequently they have higher compression, giving more bang per buck
without worrying about the detonation common in aircooled big-cylinder
engines. And they have sensible, efficient intake systems instead of
tight elbows or pipes clamped together with rubber tubes.

Dan

On Dec 31 2007, 4:51 am, " wrote:
On Dec 30, 7:43 pm, M wrote:

On Dec 30, 5:27 pm, " wrote:

Deal,,,, Come on out to Jackson Hole Wy and I will demonstrate an auto
engine that will prove both of your questions wrong.

No need for that. You should simply post your performance data right
here.

No need for that, I sell only to the "experimental" plane market. Y


Interesting. I have no doubt that you make nice engines, but being in
the experimental market still has objective performance data, like
BSFC at cruise power, installed weight, etc. I haven't yet seen your
numbers. To say your engine is really light and fuel efficient is
like saying my plane is really, really fast. What does it mean?

Happy New Year all.


Same here. Happy new year all.

On Jan 1, 4:55*pm, M wrote:
On Dec 31 2007, 4:51 am, " wrote:

On Dec 30, 7:43 pm, M wrote:

On Dec 30, 5:27 pm, " wrote:

Deal,,,, Come on out to Jackson Hole Wy and I will demonstrate an auto
engine that will prove both of your questions wrong.

No need for that. *You should simply post your performance data right
here.

No need for that, I sell only to the "experimental" plane market. Y

Interesting. *I have no doubt that you make nice engines, but being in
the experimental market still has objective performance data, like
BSFC at cruise power, installed weight, etc. *I haven't yet seen your
numbers. *To say your engine is really light and fuel efficient is
like saying my plane is really, really fast. *What does it mean?

Happy New Year all.

Same here. *Happy new year all.

I have already released the installed weight, 437 lbs,,, COMPLETE,
with redrive and prop. I could do the bait and switch like Lycoming
and Continental does. Their weight is for bare and stripped engines.
Like, 0-360 is 287 lbs, oh do ya need a fuel injection system???
that weighs more, oh, da ya need a starter??? that weighs more. Oh do
ya need an ignition system??? . And on and on,,,, I helped remove a
complete 0-360 with a constant speed prop from a plane a few years
back. When I say complete I mean everything it took to get that plane
into the air, exhaust system, fuel system, baffles, starter.
alternator, yada,yada,yada... The thing weighed 456 lbs, and thats for
180 hp.... I can do more then twice the power for 19 lbs lighter... I
am still in testing and my project could kill me on the next flight
but I am pretty sure I have it debugged pretty well. In fact I just
rolled it back into the hangar about 20 minutes ago after a nice long
flight around the Jackson Hole/ Yellowstone area. The terrain is very
hostile and probably not the best place to R&D a one of a kind engine
but I have alot of confidence in it . Did I mention the cabin heat is
Wonderful using the coolant through a heater core, No CO,,,, and it is
-8f as I type this. Cabin stays in the 70's.

Tailwinds guys....

Ben

On Dec 30 2007, 5:42 pm, M wrote:
On Dec 25, 8:13 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:



A runup doesn't do squat about removing moisture or acid. It takes a
10 to 15 minute flight of take off and cruise power. I've never seen
moisture after that, but I sure have after even a prolonged ground
run.

10 to 15 minutes at cruise prower is a reasonable claim. To say it
takes at least one hours to heat up the engine enough to boil off
water is OWT (which I often hear about). If one thinks a 30 minute
cruise flight is too short to get rid of the water, does he reduce
power to land? The engine cools off as the plane descends and water
starts to accumulate in the oil according to this theory.

10 to 15 minutes in air that is -15 or -20°C won't warm
the oil enough to get the water out. If the weather is cold enough,
the water may not leave at all. We have that problem here on the
Canadian prairies. I wish we had liquid cooling.
Closing the throttle on a warmed-up engine isn't the
same as a cold engine idling. The pistons and rings are much warmer
and the gaps have closed up some. And a windmilling engine generates
much less cylinder pressure at idle than it does on the ground, so
blowby is less.

Dan